4 ms·

I don't disagree with the article in principle, but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. At 41 y/o I h

I don't disagree with the article in principle, but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. At 41 y/o I have arrived at most of the same wisdom but I can't see how and where can I implement it. As others commenters said, I wish I could take a pay cut and work on things I love more than my current job. I absolutely can't afford it; not because I can't take the income hit month by month -- I surely can, let's not forget us the programmers are rather privileged -- but I can't afford not saving, especially having in mind where does the world seem to go (potential economical crisis on the horizon). If I arrive at a point in my life where I can unquestionably abide by the philosophy described in the article, I might cry emotionally, while yelling of pain and happiness at the same time. For now though, it's still not happening. (And that's leaving aside the fact that I don't necessarily agree that material minimalism leads to happiness necessarily.)

TimPC 5y ago
Financially sure we face more pressure. But let’s be honest that modern society is practically a utopia compared to being drafted into WW2 and facing carnage and death.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Cherry picking makes no argument any favours. :P I agree on WW2, sure, but after WW2? I've spoken with 30+ elders and they all unanimously agree that life in general was much, much better than today. Mostly in terms of upwards social mobility. An insane amount of very regular bank tellers could afford house, two apartments and 2-3 cars. And to put 3 kids in an university. Nowadays that's a very questionable endeavour.
  - groby_b 5y ago
    I'd strongly suggest looking for supporting data. If you talk to people, you will inevitably hear that "the good old times" were better than what we have. In the 1950s, the average house was still ~3 years of average income. Cars were about 9 months of income. So the "regular bank teller" with a house, 2 apartments, and 3 cars... there's something missing in the story. Let's not even get into the fact that life was significantly worse if you happened to be not white or male. Black people didn't have their voting rights significantly curtailed via Jim Crow laws. Married women didn't have the ability to have their own money. Beating your spouse was A-OK. Yes, social mobility was better (for white men). Universities were cheaper (a year of tuition was still ~1-2 months of income). Medical care was... not so good. Nutrition a non-existent concept. (And before we go to the "all natural food", quick reminder that the 1950s were the decade of TV dinners and truly atrocious recipes) The 50's certainly had less of the constant stream of demands that our current time has. It's not like it was purely worse, or the "golden age" image wouldn't hold. But as a net, across the population, we've seen improvement. We are backsliding the last ~20 years, absolutely. But we're still not in 1950.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      > In the 1950s, the average house was still ~3 years of average income. Today you'd be lucky if that's 10 years; most likely very well paid too. For most people with well-paid jobs it's 15, and for everybody else it's a lifetime endeavour (20-30). Not sure how you're contradicting me exactly with this. I guess we are both showing bias and filter bubble effects. I live in a poor country and even if I am not poor myself, how almost everybody around me lives is sadly too visible.
    - golemiprague 5y ago
      Is it so much better for black people these days to grow up without a dad in some crappy neighbourhood with gun shots every weekend comparing to growing up in a family in a peaceful neighbourhood in the 50'? I am not so sure and I don't see so much intermixing with the rest of the American society, blacks still interact mainly among themselves so it is not that different from the times when this kind of segregation was institutionalised. Women also don't seem to be that thrilled from their current situation, who said being another HR manager is better than being a housewife? From the amount of complains you hear about how hard it is to be black or a woman these days it seems like they are much less happy, at least subjectively.
- sg47 5y ago
  With WW2, people had a clear goal to look forward to. Ending the war. Today, people are drifting aimlessly and just go through life which causes more dissatisfaction than being in the middle of a war.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    A ton of people today would work towards very noble goals, if they weren't stuck on a survival hamster wheel. Lack of clear goal? Talk for yourself.
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    For people in occupied countries (Europe and elsewhere), the goal was to merely survive the war and deal with the fallout (death of relatives, destruction of property). Even with drafts, US was a paradise on earth during 1939-1945 compared to much of the world.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. I don't think this is even close to true. In fact we've got it pretty soft compared to many earlier eras. Think about having to wake up prior to daybreak to feed the animals, milk the cows, start fires for cooking, heating (a lot of wood chopping), etc. Having to haul drinking water. Scratching out a subsistence living. No or very minimal medical care. Lifespans in the 30 to 40 year range. I think much of the pressure we feel is self-imposed striving to keep up with a lifestyle fantasy handed down to us by advertising and peer pressure.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Factually that's true of course but hey, at least you weren't always in debt like most of the people nowadays are. And you got to live around nature and eat actual organic food. I am not looking to the past with rose-tinted glasses, mind you -- definitely not all of it. And I didn't mean the farm life in particular. I mostly meant the post-WW2 generation. It's well-documented (but I don't keep link because why would I) that their social upwards mobility actually did exist. Very much not the case for most modern people who are just scratching to have subsistence living as you mentioned. Theoretically we can stretch this argument to infinity but in practice most people are not going anywhere on the social ladder for their entire lives. Let's be honest and realistic and look at how things are today. > I think much of the pressure we feel is self-imposed striving to keep up with a lifestyle fantasy handed down to us by advertising. You might be projecting a bit with your statement? To me, having my own house, no debts and job / business that does not burn me out on a regular basis should not be in the league of "fantasy lifestyle", no. (Oh, and let's not even mention all technology and bureaucracy that by now it's super clear was never meant to make our lives easier.)
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    > I mostly meant the post-WW2 generation. It's well-documented (but I don't keep link because why would I) that their social upwards mobility actually did exist. A short period of the modern era in which the US was pretty much the only nation with it's manufacturing capability completely intact after the destruction of WWII. The US also realized that funding education was important for a time after the war to retrain veterans. It's how so many people were able to get college degrees essentially for free which helped boost the economy for a generation. > at least you weren't always in debt like most of the people nowadays are Since it sounds like you're limiting the modern era to after 2000, it seems we can stretch things a bit and look at the era of The Great Depression as being pre-modern by that definition (I think The Depression falls squarely in Modernity, but for the sake of argument...). Mortgage debt increased 8X from 1920 to 1929. Installment debt increased at similar rates. This is far from the first generation that's taken on a lot of debt. Yes, I agree that there are forces at work which conspire to keep people in debt, however those forces are not new. Things are made worse by the high cost of housing which is caused by constrained supply (and a greater population now putting more demand on housing), but again, I'm not sure we haven't been here before. Pendulums swing. And why are houses so much bigger now than they were in that postwar era when families were larger? That also leads to higher housing costs (some of it is demand and some of it is perverse incentives for builders to build bigger houses).
vlunkr 5y ago
I think this attitude, which is becoming increasingly prevalent on the internet, is probably causing tons of unnecessary unhappiness. How many periods in history have there been where the average person was comfortable taking a pay cut? Even if there was such a period, it would have been true only for a privileged subset of the population.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  And I think your attitude generalizes too much and glosses over way too many things. We should operate with what can we do realistically . Not what can we do hypothetically. Hypothetically I can stop working now and have money for 3 months ahead. Realistically, I won't be able to pay rent afterwards, or even have food on the table. So I seriously disagree with your stance -- but I don't expect you to change it. Modern times are a hamster wheel grind. At one point you just get too tired and die, and then the system yells: "NEXT!" That's the reality in most of the world. Likely not where you live though.
- volkk 5y ago
  also hindsight is always 20/20, but if you don't seek to be happier now and this looming economic depression that might happen doesn't happen for another 10-15 years, then you've just spent that much time being unhappy. but on the other hand, if you quit your job now and it happens a month from now then you'd be kicking yourself hard. so the only solution is to just make a damn decision, and have a plan for either scenario. trying to time unforeseen black swan events, or economic factors seem to be a losing game. if it wasn't, we'd all be billionaires.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    You all somehow always make happiness about "just be happy, man". No offense to you or the other commenters, I simply can't take people like that seriously, hard as I try. If the advice is more nuanced and has more details, then I absolutely can respect it and engage with it in an interesting discussion. But when it's framed as "live in the moment" then I can only roll my eyes.
go_elmo 5y ago
honestly, its just our fears stopping us. As a programmer you earn enough in 1-5 years to live like a god in parts of the world. To be happy one can also start farming and have a small garden somewhere on this planet, live a decent life and be happy. Its pure fear stopping us.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  That skips way too many details. I am 41 and I was never able to save a money. Partially because I was stupid, absolutely, but I also came to realize how much we are sheep-herded into consumerism. And many times we don't have a choice. People's fridges, ovens, air conditioners, dish washers, vacuum cleaners, smartphones etc., nowadays seem to start breaking like clockwork literal weeks to months after the warranty expires. So while personal financial responsibility and education can and will go a long way, it's important to recognize that we live in a fairly rigged and predatory system as well. My fear is just that: "will I will be stable financially?". So far I never was so I can't just drop this fear and start breathing freely come tomorrow. These are problems that still need addressing.
  - lexapro 5y ago
    Many programmers can save >50% of their net income. I realize that this is not possible in every part of the world or in every situation, but if anyone is stable financially, it's probably us.
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      Most, yes. I wasn't able to. With any luck, I'll be able to start saving in a few months, after I hit 42.
      - go_elmo 5y ago
        Concluding from your previouw answer it is due to your choices, not possibilities. Financial education should be mandatory, to this day only academics seem to know the basic concept of wealth accumumation => need for investment to build personal wealth...
Ensorceled 5y ago
> but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. Both my grandfathers were farmers who also had additional jobs to make ends meet. My paternal grandfather worked 365 days a year with a day off at Easter and Christmas morning in the lumber camps for several years to save enough money to buy his farm. This was not unusual for my grand parents generation. When I was younger, my father worked a full time job and then worked in the lumber mill on the weekend and also ran a trap line to afford our house.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  I've known both extremes. Anecdotes can only take us so far. And I am from a poor country. Even there, elders regularly say life was easier (even if it was hard before in the first place). Things can go from bad to worse, you know.
lexapro 5y ago
>but I can't afford not saving, especially having in mind where does the world seem to go (potential economical crisis on the horizon) That was always the case in history and I would argue we are living in one of the best periods ever when it comes to that.

TimPC 5y ago

Financially sure we face more pressure. But let’s be honest that modern society is practically a utopia compared to being drafted into WW2 and facing carnage and death.

pdimitar 5y ago
Cherry picking makes no argument any favours. :P I agree on WW2, sure, but after WW2? I've spoken with 30+ elders and they all unanimously agree that life in general was much, much better than today. Mostly in terms of upwards social mobility. An insane amount of very regular bank tellers could afford house, two apartments and 2-3 cars. And to put 3 kids in an university. Nowadays that's a very questionable endeavour.
- groby_b 5y ago
  I'd strongly suggest looking for supporting data. If you talk to people, you will inevitably hear that "the good old times" were better than what we have. In the 1950s, the average house was still ~3 years of average income. Cars were about 9 months of income. So the "regular bank teller" with a house, 2 apartments, and 3 cars... there's something missing in the story. Let's not even get into the fact that life was significantly worse if you happened to be not white or male. Black people didn't have their voting rights significantly curtailed via Jim Crow laws. Married women didn't have the ability to have their own money. Beating your spouse was A-OK. Yes, social mobility was better (for white men). Universities were cheaper (a year of tuition was still ~1-2 months of income). Medical care was... not so good. Nutrition a non-existent concept. (And before we go to the "all natural food", quick reminder that the 1950s were the decade of TV dinners and truly atrocious recipes) The 50's certainly had less of the constant stream of demands that our current time has. It's not like it was purely worse, or the "golden age" image wouldn't hold. But as a net, across the population, we've seen improvement. We are backsliding the last ~20 years, absolutely. But we're still not in 1950.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    > In the 1950s, the average house was still ~3 years of average income. Today you'd be lucky if that's 10 years; most likely very well paid too. For most people with well-paid jobs it's 15, and for everybody else it's a lifetime endeavour (20-30). Not sure how you're contradicting me exactly with this. I guess we are both showing bias and filter bubble effects. I live in a poor country and even if I am not poor myself, how almost everybody around me lives is sadly too visible.
  - golemiprague 5y ago
    Is it so much better for black people these days to grow up without a dad in some crappy neighbourhood with gun shots every weekend comparing to growing up in a family in a peaceful neighbourhood in the 50'? I am not so sure and I don't see so much intermixing with the rest of the American society, blacks still interact mainly among themselves so it is not that different from the times when this kind of segregation was institutionalised. Women also don't seem to be that thrilled from their current situation, who said being another HR manager is better than being a housewife? From the amount of complains you hear about how hard it is to be black or a woman these days it seems like they are much less happy, at least subjectively.
sg47 5y ago
With WW2, people had a clear goal to look forward to. Ending the war. Today, people are drifting aimlessly and just go through life which causes more dissatisfaction than being in the middle of a war.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  A ton of people today would work towards very noble goals, if they weren't stuck on a survival hamster wheel. Lack of clear goal? Talk for yourself.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  For people in occupied countries (Europe and elsewhere), the goal was to merely survive the war and deal with the fallout (death of relatives, destruction of property). Even with drafts, US was a paradise on earth during 1939-1945 compared to much of the world.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

> but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. I don't think this is even close to true. In fact we've got it pretty soft compared to many earlier eras. Think about having to wake up prior to daybreak to feed the animals, milk the cows, start fires for cooking, heating (a lot of wood chopping), etc. Having to haul drinking water. Scratching out a subsistence living. No or very minimal medical care. Lifespans in the 30 to 40 year range. I think much of the pressure we feel is self-imposed striving to keep up with a lifestyle fantasy handed down to us by advertising and peer pressure.

pdimitar 5y ago
Factually that's true of course but hey, at least you weren't always in debt like most of the people nowadays are. And you got to live around nature and eat actual organic food. I am not looking to the past with rose-tinted glasses, mind you -- definitely not all of it. And I didn't mean the farm life in particular. I mostly meant the post-WW2 generation. It's well-documented (but I don't keep link because why would I) that their social upwards mobility actually did exist. Very much not the case for most modern people who are just scratching to have subsistence living as you mentioned. Theoretically we can stretch this argument to infinity but in practice most people are not going anywhere on the social ladder for their entire lives. Let's be honest and realistic and look at how things are today. > I think much of the pressure we feel is self-imposed striving to keep up with a lifestyle fantasy handed down to us by advertising. You might be projecting a bit with your statement? To me, having my own house, no debts and job / business that does not burn me out on a regular basis should not be in the league of "fantasy lifestyle", no. (Oh, and let's not even mention all technology and bureaucracy that by now it's super clear was never meant to make our lives easier.)
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > I mostly meant the post-WW2 generation. It's well-documented (but I don't keep link because why would I) that their social upwards mobility actually did exist. A short period of the modern era in which the US was pretty much the only nation with it's manufacturing capability completely intact after the destruction of WWII. The US also realized that funding education was important for a time after the war to retrain veterans. It's how so many people were able to get college degrees essentially for free which helped boost the economy for a generation. > at least you weren't always in debt like most of the people nowadays are Since it sounds like you're limiting the modern era to after 2000, it seems we can stretch things a bit and look at the era of The Great Depression as being pre-modern by that definition (I think The Depression falls squarely in Modernity, but for the sake of argument...). Mortgage debt increased 8X from 1920 to 1929. Installment debt increased at similar rates. This is far from the first generation that's taken on a lot of debt. Yes, I agree that there are forces at work which conspire to keep people in debt, however those forces are not new. Things are made worse by the high cost of housing which is caused by constrained supply (and a greater population now putting more demand on housing), but again, I'm not sure we haven't been here before. Pendulums swing. And why are houses so much bigger now than they were in that postwar era when families were larger? That also leads to higher housing costs (some of it is demand and some of it is perverse incentives for builders to build bigger houses).

vlunkr 5y ago

I think this attitude, which is becoming increasingly prevalent on the internet, is probably causing tons of unnecessary unhappiness. How many periods in history have there been where the average person was comfortable taking a pay cut? Even if there was such a period, it would have been true only for a privileged subset of the population.

pdimitar 5y ago
And I think your attitude generalizes too much and glosses over way too many things. We should operate with what can we do realistically . Not what can we do hypothetically. Hypothetically I can stop working now and have money for 3 months ahead. Realistically, I won't be able to pay rent afterwards, or even have food on the table. So I seriously disagree with your stance -- but I don't expect you to change it. Modern times are a hamster wheel grind. At one point you just get too tired and die, and then the system yells: "NEXT!" That's the reality in most of the world. Likely not where you live though.
volkk 5y ago
also hindsight is always 20/20, but if you don't seek to be happier now and this looming economic depression that might happen doesn't happen for another 10-15 years, then you've just spent that much time being unhappy. but on the other hand, if you quit your job now and it happens a month from now then you'd be kicking yourself hard. so the only solution is to just make a damn decision, and have a plan for either scenario. trying to time unforeseen black swan events, or economic factors seem to be a losing game. if it wasn't, we'd all be billionaires.
- pdimitar 5y ago
  You all somehow always make happiness about "just be happy, man". No offense to you or the other commenters, I simply can't take people like that seriously, hard as I try. If the advice is more nuanced and has more details, then I absolutely can respect it and engage with it in an interesting discussion. But when it's framed as "live in the moment" then I can only roll my eyes.

go_elmo 5y ago

honestly, its just our fears stopping us. As a programmer you earn enough in 1-5 years to live like a god in parts of the world. To be happy one can also start farming and have a small garden somewhere on this planet, live a decent life and be happy. Its pure fear stopping us.

pdimitar 5y ago
That skips way too many details. I am 41 and I was never able to save a money. Partially because I was stupid, absolutely, but I also came to realize how much we are sheep-herded into consumerism. And many times we don't have a choice. People's fridges, ovens, air conditioners, dish washers, vacuum cleaners, smartphones etc., nowadays seem to start breaking like clockwork literal weeks to months after the warranty expires. So while personal financial responsibility and education can and will go a long way, it's important to recognize that we live in a fairly rigged and predatory system as well. My fear is just that: "will I will be stable financially?". So far I never was so I can't just drop this fear and start breathing freely come tomorrow. These are problems that still need addressing.
- lexapro 5y ago
  Many programmers can save >50% of their net income. I realize that this is not possible in every part of the world or in every situation, but if anyone is stable financially, it's probably us.
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Most, yes. I wasn't able to. With any luck, I'll be able to start saving in a few months, after I hit 42.
    - go_elmo 5y ago
      Concluding from your previouw answer it is due to your choices, not possibilities. Financial education should be mandatory, to this day only academics seem to know the basic concept of wealth accumumation => need for investment to build personal wealth...

Ensorceled 5y ago

> but to me it seems that us the modern people are pressured much harder than previous generations. Both my grandfathers were farmers who also had additional jobs to make ends meet. My paternal grandfather worked 365 days a year with a day off at Easter and Christmas morning in the lumber camps for several years to save enough money to buy his farm. This was not unusual for my grand parents generation. When I was younger, my father worked a full time job and then worked in the lumber mill on the weekend and also ran a trap line to afford our house.

pdimitar 5y ago
I've known both extremes. Anecdotes can only take us so far. And I am from a poor country. Even there, elders regularly say life was easier (even if it was hard before in the first place). Things can go from bad to worse, you know.

lexapro 5y ago

>but I can't afford not saving, especially having in mind where does the world seem to go (potential economical crisis on the horizon) That was always the case in history and I would argue we are living in one of the best periods ever when it comes to that.